Definition and demarcation
Due to the ubiquitous spread of digital technologies, they are omnipresent in everyday life and influence people’s perception, behaviour and well-being. Digital wellbeing is concerned with the wellbeing of people who are exposed to increasing technologisation. Basically, it is still an emerging concept for which there is currently no standardised and generally recognised definition. For example, while some terms emphasise the normative nature of digital wellbeing and focus on the ability of individuals to reconcile the use of digital technologies with long-term goals[4]other definitions consider the impact of digital technology use on wellbeing taking into account the balance between the underlying advantages and disadvantages associated with its use[8]. In principle, however, the literature agrees that digital wellbeing is about enabling the best possible life in harmony with digitalisation[2]. Three main components are at the centre of this: digital practices, benefits and risks, and well-being. Increasing digitalisation brings with it both positive and negative aspects that arise depending on digital practices. Benefits and risks can have an impact on the well-being of the individual, which can ultimately affect society as a whole from a collective perspective[1].
Well-being is a complex and broad concept for which various definitions and approaches exist in academia. However, a distinction is often made between two types of well-being: hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. In hedonistic well-being (alternatively: subjective well-being[3]) is about how a person evaluates their life from an emotional and cognitive perspective. Hedonistic well-being is characterised by two dimensions in particular: The first is the extent to which life is rated as generally satisfying, and the second is the so-called affect balance, i.e. the desire to be exposed to positive feelings as often as possible and negative feelings as rarely as possible. The second type, eudaimonic well-being (alternatively: psychological well-being[6]), is primarily about having certain needs as a person in order to advance one’s own personal development. Satisfying these needs helps you to realise your full potential. Researchers have identified six main components that contribute to eudaimonic well-being: autonomy, positive relationships with others, control of the environment, meaning in life, self-acceptance and personal growth. Last but not least, there are so-called risk and resilience factors that can also influence well-being.
Digital technologies can have an impact on the above-mentioned areas of wellbeing depending on which digital practices are used in dealing with digital technologies and which benefits and risks result from them.
History
The term digital wellbeing has become established in everyday language mainly in connection with the applications that have been on the market since 2018, which log the usage time of devices and apps on them and offer the possibility of controlling this. In the field of research, the term is a concept that has only been increasingly used in recent years. Since 2015/2016, there has been an exponential increase in research articles on the topic of digital wellbeing[8].
Application and examples
A better understanding of how the use of digital technologies affects well-being helps to reduce possible negative consequences and increase the positive aspects. Possible positive aspects could include increased social connection with other individuals, social support and improved access to information[1]. Negative aspects can include factors such as stress due to constant availability, privacy concerns when sharing personal information and access to misinformation[1]. The last examples (access to information and misinformation) illustrate that positive and negative factors can occur in parallel. Possible risk and resilience factors include, for example, feelings of loneliness, stress, sleep quality or self-esteem.
Digital technologies that can have an impact on the well-being of individuals and society include social media, smartphones and artificial intelligence applications.
Digital practices include the way in which digital technologies are actually used and can entail both benefits and risks for well-being[1]. Digital practices are shaped by various factors, such as permanent connectivity and accessibility, the diverse options of usable digital technologies and the integration of various technologies in one and the same place[1]. Such digital practices encompass a wide range of behaviours in how digital technologies are used. This can include general (non-)use, intensity and frequency of use, as well as the context and purpose of use.
Research and challenges
While previous research has analysed the impact on people’s well-being on the basis of global usage patterns such as frequency of use and absolute usage time, current research increasingly takes into account the high complexity of the underlying research context. Accordingly, it is not only the general use of digital technologies that contributes to well-being, but also a variety of other factors. For example, the influence of digital technology use can depend on the underlying motivation for use, the content being viewed, the context of use and individual differences[9]. Accordingly, in addition to a large number of different moderators, inter-individual and, in particular, intra-individual differences between the test subjects are also taken into account. Due to the high complexity of the field of investigation, it is not yet possible to make a clear or only a limited statement about how the use of digital technologies affects the well-being of individuals. Taking this into account, however, research has so far shown that the use of digital technologies appears to make only a minor contribution to well-being [5].
Sources
[1] Büchi, M. (2024). Digital well-being theory and research. In: New Media & Society 26 (1), 172-189.
[2] Burr, C./Floridi, L. (2020). The ethics of digital well-being: A multidisciplinary perspective. In: Burr, C./Floridi, L. (eds.). Ethics of digital well-being: A multidisciplinary approach, 1-29.
[3] Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. In: Psychological Bulletin 95, 542-575.
[4] Lyngs, U. (2019). Putting self-control at the centre of digital wellbeing. 2019 ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems [Position paper]), Glasgow, UK, May 4, 2019.
[5] Orben, A./Przybylski, A. K. (2019). The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use. In: Nature Human Behaviour 3 (2), 173-182.
[6] Ryan, R. M./Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. In: American Psychologist 55, 68-78.
[8] Vanden Abeele, M. M. P./Nguyen, M. H. (2022). Digital well-being in an age of mobile connectivity: An introduction to the Special Issue. In: Mobile Media & Communication 10(2), 174-189.
